DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 19-31 in the reply filed on 8/28/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Speth does not disclose two separate heaters and reformers as required in the present invention. While the Examiner is persuaded by this argument, upon conducting the searches, Miyashita was discovered, which discloses the two heaters and two reformers as claimed. See 103 rejection below.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/28/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19-28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita et al. (US 3909446, hereinafter “Miyashita”).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Miyashita teaches a method of manufacturing high quality reducing gas by two stage reforming processes (Miyashita, Abstract). Miyashita teaches Fig. 2, included below, which shows a modified method, in which liquid hydrocarbons or solid hydrocarbons are reformed by heat decomposition in the presence of steam or hydrogen in a primary reforming furnace 1B, in which the steam or hydrogen is generated in a steam or hydrogen generator 2B (Miyashita, Column 8, line 67 to Column 9, line 7). Miyashita further teaches an intermediate gas containing hydrocarbons is produced from the primary reforming step (Miyashita, Column 9, lines 20-34). Miyashita teaches the method also includes top gas exhausted from the top of a blast furnace 9B is passed through a dust and moisture removing apparatus 11B and then introduced to the secondary reforming furnace 7B (Miyashita, Column 9, lines 41-44). Miyashita teaches the purified gas coming from the apparatus 11B is preheated by preheating furnace 8B and then sent to the secondary reforming furnace 7B (Miyashita, Column 9, lines 44-48). Miyashita also teaches the resulting reducing gas is blown into the blast furnace through the lower inlet port 12B for the purpose of reducing iron ore (Miyashita, Column 9, lines 53-56).
PNG
media_image1.png
418
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Miyashita Fig. 2 does not teach heating the hydrocarbons prior to entering the preliminary reformer 1B, Miyashita teaches in Fig. 1 the heat decomposition furnace heats the liquid and solid hydrocarbons to below 650°C in order to gasify the hydrocarbons without forming free carbon (Miyashita, Column 6, lines 41-50). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a first heater to gasify the hydrocarbons prior to entering the primary refining furnace 1B of Miyashita.
The system of Miyashita corresponds to a blast furnace installation for producing pig iron comprising a blast furnace provided with gas inlets in a shaft arranged for feeding a second stream of syngas to the blast furnace of claim 19. The heater used to heat the steam and hydrocarbons of Miyashita corresponds to a first heater in fluidic connection with a source of a stream of hydrocarbon gas and a source of a stream of steam, said first heater being arranged for heating said stream of hydrocarbon gas and said stream of steam to provide a heated stream of hydrocarbon gas and steam of claim 19.
The primary reforming furnace of Miyashita corresponds to a pre-reformer of claim 19 and the heated steam and hydrocarbons sent to the primary reforming furnace of Miyashita corresponds to the first heater being in fluidic downstream connection with an inlet of a pre-reformer, said pre-reformer being arranged for partially reforming the heated stream of hydrocarbon gas and steam to provide a stream of partially reformed syngas of claim 19.
While Miyashita teaches the use of two heaters, i.e., 6B and 8B, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a single heater to heat the purified gas and intermediate gas prior to entering the secondary reforming furnace in order to simplify the apparatus and require only a single furnace and thereby arrive at the second heater in fluidic connection with a top of the blast furnace arranged for conveying a first stream of blast furnace gas, said second heater being arranged for heating said first stream of blast furnace gas and said stream of partially reformed syngas, either separately or mixed, to provide a heated carbon feed stream of claim 19. The secondary reforming furnace 7B of Miyashita corresponds to a secondary reformer in fluidic connection with the second heater, said secondary reformer being arranged for converting the heated carbon feed stream to a second stream of syngas and being in fluidic downstream connection wit said gas inlets in the shaft of the blast furnace of claim 19.
Regarding the implementation of the blast furnace installation using the method of claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the apparatus of Miyashita would be able to perform the method steps as required in claim 20.
Regarding claims 21, 22, and 31, Miyashita teaches the furnace top exhaust gas 13A discharged from the top of the reducing furnace 1A is used as fuel for heating another set of heating furnace 15A and reforming furnace 16A, which are identical to 4A, 5A, and 11A, i.e., heat exchange (Miyashita, Column 7, lines 1-5 and Figure 1). Moreover, Miyashita teaches in Figure 2, the preheater 6B, appears to be a heat exchanger (Miyashita, Figure 2). Given the heat exchange from the top exhaust gas and heat exchanger in Figure 2 of Miyashita, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the first heater, second heater, and pre-reformer would all utilize heat exchangers and be in fluid connection with each other as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 23, Miyashita teaches steam or hydrogen can be used in the primary reforming furnace, and that it is necessary to use H2O or H2 in excess of the stoichiometric quantity with respect to the carbon content (Miyashita, Column 9, lines 4-5 and 20-26). While Miyashita does not explicitly disclose both steam and hydrogen are used in the primary reforming furnace, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add additional hydrogen gas to the primary reforming furnace in order to have an excess amount of hydrogen within the furnace and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Regarding claim 24, Miyashita teaches within the secondary reforming furnace, the intermediate gas is admixed with high temperature furnace top gas exhausted from the top of the reducing furnace, in which the top gas contains CO2 and H2O (Miyashita, Column 11, lines 17-22). Given that dry reformers use carbon dioxide to convert the hydrocarbons to CO and H2, the top gas having CO2 would give a dry reforming atmosphere as required in claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, Miyashita teaches in Fig. 2, top exhaust gas derived out from the top 13B of the blast furnace may be used as the fuel for the secondary reforming furnace 7B and preheating furnace 8B(Miyashita, Column 9, lines 58-63). The use of the top exhaust gas as fuel for the secondary reforming furnace of Miyashita corresponds to wherein the dry reformer comprises a burner in fluidic connection with the top of the blast furnace arranged for conveying a second stream of blast furnace gas to said burner of claim 25.
Regarding claim 26 and as noted above in Miyashita the preheater is used to heat the intermediate and purified gases and the top exhaust gas can be used as fuel for the secondary reforming furnace and preheating furnace (Miyashita, Fig. 2), which corresponds to wherein the dry reformer is in fluidic heating connection with the upstream second heater of claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, Miyashita teaches fuel oil and naphtha can also be supplied to the secondary reforming furnace together with O2 to supply a heat quantity necessary for the secondary quality improvement (Miyashita, Column 9, lines 62-65). The use of O2 in the reforming furnace of Miyashita corresponds to wherein the secondary reformer is an autothermal reformer in fluidic connection with a source of oxygen of claim 27.
Regarding claim 28, Miyashita teaches in Fig. 2, top exhaust gas derived out from the top 13B of the blast furnace may be used as the fuel for the secondary reforming furnace 7B and preheating furnace 8B (Miyashita, Column 9, lines 58-63). The use of top exhaust gas as fuel for the preheating furnace of Miyashita corresponds to wherein second heater comprises a burner in fluidic connection with the top of the blast furnace arranged for conveying a second stream of blast furnace gas to said burner of claim 28.
Regarding claim 30, Miyashita teaches the method also includes top gas exhausted from the top of a blast furnace 9B is passed through a dust and moisture removing apparatus 11B and then introduced to the secondary reforming furnace 7B (Miyashita, Column 9, lines 41-44). The dust and moisture removal apparatus of Miyashita corresponds to wherein the fluidic connection with the top of the blast furnace arranged for conveying a first stream of blast furnace gas further comprises a gas cooling and/or cleaning plant, a vapor removal unit, a dust removal unit, metals removal unit, HCl removal unit and/or sulfurous component removal unit of claim 30.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of De Jahn (US 2862808, hereinafter “Jahn”).
Regarding claim 29, Miyashita does not explicitly disclose wherein the second heater and/or the secondary reformer, and/or the gas inlets in the shaft of the shaft furnace is/are in fluidic connection with a source of a stream of H2, said fluidic connection(s) comprising a fourth heater for heating said stream of H-2.
With respect to the difference, Jahn teaches an apparatus and method for reducing iron oxide pellets (Jahn, Title). Jahn further teaches the primary supply of hot gas for operating the furnace and reducing the oxide is supplied through the pipe 32 connected to a header 34 from which pipes 36 run into the furnace, in which the hot gases comprise hot hydrogen and nitrogen (Jahn, Figure 1, and Column 3, lines 69-75). Jahn also teaches the gas mixture is preheated to a temperature of 1560°F using heat exchangers using heat-resistant alloys (Jahn, Column 2, lines 22-36).
As Jahn expressly teaches, the addition of hot hydrogen and nitrogen reduce the iron oxide to metallic iron (Jahn, Column 1, lines 15-17).
Miyashita and Jahn are analogous art as they are both drawn to reducing iron oxides to metallic iron using a shaft furnace (Miyashita, Abstract; Jahn, Figure 1).
In light of the motivation to introduce hot hydrogen gas to the shaft furnace as taught in Jahn above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to additionally introduce hot hydrogen gas to the shaft furnace of Miyashita in order to more quickly reduce the iron oxide to metallic iron (Jahn, Column 1, lines 15-17), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE CARDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights